HC Deb 22 June 1948 vol 452 cc1256-71
Mr. Pitman

I beg to move, in page 35, line 43, at the end, to insert: Provided that where investment income from any capital asset be shown to the satisfaction of the Special Commissioners to exceed 10 per cent. of present value of the said asset, no contribution shall be payable on the excess. This is an interesting Amendment because it goes right to the root of the question of this Special Contribution. The Chancellor said clearly today that the intention is that this Special Contribution should be levied on capital. In Committee he made it quite clear that he was envisaging that the working back to capital from income was on the basis of 33⅓ years' purchase, because he said that the tax is "something like 1½ per cent. of the capital." In a subsequent explanation the Solicitor-General pointed out that he was assuming the highest rate of 10s. in the £ on the income, and the explanation of his 1½ per cent. was that he was assuming that the capital yielded 3 per cent. If we are, in this Special Contribution, to work back from income to capital, we must recognise that in point of fact capital varies enormously from Treasury Deposit Receipts on which the interest is at the rate of one half per cent.—and the capital is, therefore, 200 years' purchase—to a case like the last year in a long leasehold in which the leaseholder is getting an investment income on a capital which does not exist at all. The moment the last rental has been received, the lease falls in to the ground landlord for the building upon it, and that poor lease-holder has an income which supposes a theoretically big capital, whereas in point of fact there is no capital at all. The purpose of this Amendment is to put a ceiling on the rate of levy upon only small capital, under this Clause.

Suppose that an individual has an investment income of £2,000. That capital can be either in Treasury deposit receipts—a capital sum of £400,000, which is a very considerable sum—or, if we take the rate that the Chancellor himself suggested—and let us be charitable and take the Electricity Stock instead of the Transport Stock—the capital is £66,666. If we take 5 per cent., the capital is £40,000, and if we take 10 per cent., which is the point on which I seek to draw the line, the capital is £20,000.

The odd thing about the arrangement of this Contribution is that the man with the highest capital pays the lowest rate of tax and vice versa. The rate of Contribution is only 2 per cent. assuming an income of £2,000 drawn from Treasury Deposit Receipts on the £400,000 capital but on £400,000 it goes up to 4 per cent. on the £20,000 of somebody who has the same income from a ten-years' purchase investment. The rate is thus twenty times greater on the smaller capital. More- over in the case of the owner of a leasehold property that is expiring, he pays a very heavy tax indeed, literally at a rate of millions per cent., because it is levied on a capital which does not exist at all.

That applies equally to the case, which the Solicitor-General admitted was true of a widow holding copyrights of her husband's works which, in the last year before the expiry of the copyrights in question, could yield a very considerable income on no capital at all. The Solicitor-General has told us that in the hands of the widow that will be an investment income. The purpose of this Amendment is to stop the results of this most curious arrangement which the Chancellor has brought forward. He is taking the line that if income exists then capital exists, entirely failing to realise that there can be capital without income and that there can be income without capital. If there is money on current account at the bank, however big that amount is, however much capital an individual may own, there will be no Contribution at all. On the other hand the less capital he has, literally, the higher and higher the rate of Contribution which he has to pay, until, when he has any expiring investments, he is paying a Contribution at a rate of infinity per cent. We want to put on a limit so that he shall never pay at a rate of more than 4 per cent. on his capital at the £2,000 mark. We think that is a very reasonable proposition to put forward in this respect, because there ought clearly to be a ceiling to prevent a real injustice to people of this kind.

I want to make these further points. First, there are two cases where the capital is not there at all, and there are two reasons why it is not there. The first is in the case of terminability, such as a leasehold or copyright. There is also the case of the personal effort company, in which the so-called capital of the company is a fiction. It is there for purposes of convenience; the owner of a share is entitled to a share in his own personal efforts, and that share does not represent any real capital. I would quote as an instance business consultants and engineering consultants, who may be operating as a company, but who, in point of fact, can and easily may have no capital whatever behind them, and whose shares really represent a proportion of the profits of their joint efforts.

Secondly, there is the case where there is capital, but where it is capital only to a small extent, and, here again, there are two classes. There is the case of risk capital, and, surely, we in this House wish to encourage capital where it is taking a real risk and to discourage it in the cases where it is locked away as cash, not invested at all or put into Treasury Deposit Receipts so that it can be drawn at any time. Then, there is the case of accumulation in trusts, in which the trustee has a discretion to withhold the income and accumulate it, or to pay the income of one year with that of previous years. We were discussing this question yesterday, and the learned Solicitor-General referred me to Clause 60, but I am certain that it does not apply to the case of trustees who pay in one year the accumulation of, shall we say, 10 years' previous income of the trust. That trust will be assumed to have a far greater capital than, in point of fact, it has, merely by the accident of accumulation. The Chancellor has already given way on the concession in regard to Death Duties, and we ask him to give way on this, which has an equal precedent along the same lines.

In all these cases, the Amendment will achieve the desired results of giving some relief down to the level of 10 years' purchase. We must always remember that there is a trigger which lets off this particular levy, and that it may be either the accident of work or the accident of marriage. My point is that neither of these accidents has anything whatever to do with the real justice of the tax. It is something irrelevant and accidental, and this is an additional reason for inserting a ceiling to prevent injustice. I hope, therefore, the Chancellor will meet this very clear injustice in these cases by accepting the Amendment.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Hollis

I beg to second the Amendment.

In any event I think this case would have been a strong one, but following the tone this Debate has taken it is a particularly strong one because, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) said yesterday, the Chancellor entertained us for two days by hopping from foot to foot like a stork, undecided whether this is a tax on capital or a tax on income. Eventually, in a Debate on an Amendment to Clause 46, he came down on the fact that it was a tax on capital and, having come down, like a stork he flitted from the Chamber leaving the Financial Secretary to hold the baby—which, frankly, I must say he has at present shown very little capacity for holding—and to make the best of the case that he could.

The fact of the matter is that this is a tax on capital, which it is frankly admitted must be predominantly paid out of capital, but the precise obligation is calculated on income. The fact is that it would be much better if the whole thing were to go, but we cannot properly urge that at the moment. If that is not possible, it is at any rate essential, in his own interest, that the Financial Secretary should accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman), or some similar Amendment, and make his own legislation of such a sort that it can conceivably be workable, by dealing with the more gross possibilities and anomalies in it. I second the Amendment in any case, but I do so most heartily in order to beg the Financial Secretary—if I can beg no more—at least to try to whip his own legislation into some sort of shape in which it can conceivably work.

The Solicitor-General

I do not think a case has been made out for this Amendment. May I, first, deal with one or two points which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman), who moved the Amendment? He mentioned the case, as I understood it, of a discretionary trust in which the trustees in a particular year had paid accumulated income. He said that was not within the scope of the relief provided by Clause 60 of the Bill. I think that probably is the case, but of course the answer is that in the case of a trust there is nearly always capital behind it, and if the income has accumulated from the previous years and is paid in the year 1947–48, the contributor has the right of recourse against the trustees, who can go against the capital.

The hon. Member had in mind, when moving the Amendment, not that type of case, because it did not seem to me that that particular case was directly relevant. He had in mind the kind of case in which we have capital which is not quantitative in terms of value. One can think of a variety of things—patents, copyrights, and so on. Looking at the incidence of this tax, it seems to me that the hon. Member is painting a rather unreal picture. Take the case of a person with an income entirely from investment of, say, £1,000. The Contribution payable on an income from investment of that sort is £125.

It is unlikely, in the first place, that a person who has a very substantial investment income of £1,000 will have no capital behind that income; that is to say, that he will draw the whole of it from one form of capital investment. It is extremely substantial in terms of quantifiable value. It is in the highest degree unlikely it will not be £125 many times over. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because he will probably not draw all that investment from one particular form of capital, but from a variety of different investments—partly stocks and shares, partly real property, partly, it may be, copyright; but in any case £125 upon an investment income of £1,000, which is, as I say, a very substantial income, does not seem to us, at any rate, to be a very serious burden. If he has not income from which he can find £125 in toto he can probably find part of it from capital, and if the worst comes to the worst and he cannot find the money out of capital, because it is of such a nature that he cannot turn it into money, he can pay that sum of £125 out of income. If he has £1,000 investment income it should not be such a substantial burden in the case of a "once-for-all" tax such as this.

In these circumstances, it is said, because we must view this as solely a tax upon capital, it follows as a matter of axiomatical necessity that if one has any capital difficult to quantify in terms of value, something must be put on it. I do not see there can be any reason for saying so. The tax is payable by the individual and he can pay it as he likes. There is no obligation on him to realise capital. There is no obligation on him to pay out of income. It is entirely a matter for him to suit his own personal arrangements. If we are talking in terms of a sum like £125, and a substantial investment of that sort, it is for the man to decide how to pay it. It is in the highest degree unlikely in the case of an income of that sort that he could not pay, if he wished to realise it, out of capital, or that he would not have suffi- cient capital to enable him to find that sum of money. For those reasons we are saying that there is no ground for this Amendment.

To some extent there was a case to be made for the partnership which was converted into a company and the capital was really represented by the brains of the partnership. We have provided for that case by Schedule 10. It deals with working directors, and that is the object of the Tenth Schedule. But beyond that we really cannot see a case to be made out for this ceiling. The incidence of the tax makes such a ceiling unnecessary. If we did have such a ceiling it would introduce unfortunate complications in the assessment of the tax, because it would mean that in particular cases in which there could be any question of a return of about 10 per cent. we should have to value the capital asset. Sometimes it would be so difficult to know the value of that capital asset. We should have to value, perhaps, patents or something of that sort, or copyrights. It would be extremely difficult to do so, and it would convert a tax from one simple to assess and to collect to one which would involve an enormous amount of research into values. But the ground on which I oppose this Amendment is upon the general merits having regard to the amount of Contribution, which should not really mean any hardship to a person; and it is extremely unlikely, if he had such a sufficient investment income, that he would be unable to produce the necessary money either out of income or out of capital.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Stanley

I beg to move, in page 36, line 2, to leave out from "persons," to "shall," in line 3, and to insert: for valuable and sufficient consideration This is a simple Amendment. It will afford the Solicitor-General no excuse for using such terms as "quantified value of the investment" with which he sought to clarify the situation on the previous Amendment. Subsection (2) of this Clause has for its purpose the exclusion of terminable annuities from the investment income on which the levy is to be based. The reason is obvious. In fact, that investment income represents no capital, and, therefore, as this is now admitted to be a capital tax, it clearly should be excluded. The limitation is put upon the provision of Subsection (2) that it is to be a terminable annuity payable by the National Debt Commissioners, or, roughly speaking, from people carrying on assurance business.

I do not see the reason for a limitation of that kind. So long as the annuity has been created for valuable and sufficient consideration, so long, therefore, as someone has parted with his capital to whomever it may be in order to establish this annuity, it would seem that this exemption ought still to apply. The object of the Amendment is to put any annuity created for valuable and sufficient consideration into the same position as an annuity which happens to be bought through an ordinary life assurance business. I hope that on whichever of the storks it falls to answer this, he will try on this occasion to stand with both feet on the ground and give me an affirmative answer.

The Solicitor-General

I am not sure that I know exactly what the Amendment adds to the Clause. The Clause, as at present drawn, is, we think, quite wide enough to exclude those sorts of annuities which ought to come out of the ambit of the tax, in that they can be said to represent no capital investment. A terminable annuity payable by the National Debt Commissioners or by any other persons in the carrying on of life assurance business shall be disregarded in ascertaining aggregate investment income … is a wide description which does take out of the scope of the tax all that can be said to be annuities which should not, having regard to the intention of the tax, be within its scope. If the words for valuable and sufficient consideration, are to be substituted for the words in the carrying on of life assurance business, that is a wide description of the type of annuities envisaged in the excluded words, and I do not see that the words for valuable and sufficient consideration, would amplify the scope in any definable sense. They would introduce a considerable degree of uncertainty as to what form of annuity was intended to be excluded, and I feel that, for those reasons, the Amendment does not add anything to the Clause.

Mr. Stanley

I must apologise. I am afraid that the simplicity of the language which I used has obscured the meaning of the Amendment. The whole object of this Clause is that we should not be confined to annuities which happen to be purchased from the people carrying on the business of life assurance. If I had purchased for valuable and sufficient consideration an annuity from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he happened to be indulging in that form of transaction, I see no reason why that should not get the exemption in the same way as if I had bought it from one of the assurance companies in the City of London. That, surely, is the obvious meaning both of the words on the paper and the words with which I introduced the Amendment. I most sincerely apologise to the Solicitor-General that I did not have time to clothe the Amendment in that obscurity which would have made its meaning more clear to him.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Eccles

I really am surprised at the reply which we have had from the Solicitor-General. He will recollect that when we discussed this point in Committee, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the position of a man who, retiring from his business and not wishing, say, his son to have to find a large capital sum for taking on his business, agreed with his son that he should have so much a year in exchange for handing over to the boy the stock in trade, the goodwill and the whole of the business. Now, that is a very common form of selling a business. The Chancellor then answered in a way which, I am advised by other legal authorities, is very dubious. He said that if the business were sold in exchange for a fixed number of payments—say £25,000 paid as to £2,500 every year for 10 years—those payments would not attract Income Tax and Surtax, and, therefore, would not attract the Special Contribution. But that was not really the case which I put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. There are many instances where a business is sold, not for a fixed number of payments but for so much a year for the father's life; in other words, for an annuity.

It is perfectly clear that unless our Amendment is accepted, the sale of a business—or it could be a patent, or any- thing else—on those terms, for annual payments, must result in those annual payments—which are nothing more or less than annuities—attracting the tax. There are many other instances, with which I do not wish to detain the House at this time of night. Very often a business will sell an annuity to one of its servants; it is not necessary to go to an insurance company; there are plenty of other people who trade in annuities, and why they should be excepted I cannot see. I really think that the Solicitor-General must give a much better answer than the one we have had so far, because he apparently completely overlooked the argument we had in Committee, and treated this question as though there were no annuities at all, other than those sold through insurance companies, or it may be the Post Office. I hope we shall get some further reply from the Government.

Mr. Scollan

Would the hon. Member clear up a point? I have been trying to follow the argument, and I can quite understand shall be disregarded in ascertaining aggregate investment income, but how would that be amended by inserting: for valuable and sufficient consideration"? Valuable to whom? Sufficient for what?

Mr. Eccles

It is a well-known term. Suppose the hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), in order to avoid his heavy Surtax liability, were to give me £500 a year for no consideration on my part at all, and I were then to go round to his back door and return some money to him. It would not be reasonable to exclude that. But if I paid the hon. Member £10,000, in exchange for which he gave me £500 a year for the rest of my life, I should have given him a valuable and sufficient consideration. It is precisely that kind of annuity which is excluded.

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

Would the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) explain to the hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) whether or not that is good in Scots law?

The Solicitor-General

If I did not make my answer clear before, may I try to do it again? I have no doubt it was my fault. I criticised the Amendment, because I submitted to the House that it introduced an obscurity, and I will endeavour to explain why I think that is so. At the moment, we have tried to exclude annuities which can be pointed to, if I may so describe it—annuities which are definable. What we want to exclude, in general, is annuities which have no capital behind them, and so we first selected terminable annuities issued by the National Debt Commissioners, because we can clearly put our finger on those. In the next phrase we have excluded annuities issued by other persons in the carrying on of life assurance business. That, I should have explained, introduces a definable type of annuity, for reasons which I did not give, because it incorporates the definition of a life assurance business which is to be found in Section 237 of the Income Tax Act, 1938. If we refer to that definition we can find what type of annuity is within it and what types are not. The definition is a wide one, and includes terminable annuities issued by life assurance companies and also by various other institutions, such as friendly societies, trade unions and all the rest. What we have done in selecting the language is to put a circle around the kind of thing we have in mind.

I criticised the Amendment by saying that it introduced an obscurity, because it virtually covered every annuity issued for valuable consideration. In the first place that would react upon Subsection (3), which again deals with another definable type of annuity. It would include various annuities which might or might not have capital behind them. It is not altogether easy to draw a line between those that have a capital basis and those that have not.

Mr. Stanley

Can the Solicitor-General give me an instance where, having bought an annuity for full and valuable consideration, there can be no capital behind an annuity?

The Solicitor-General

Take the case of Consols.

Mr. Stanley

That is not a terminal annuity.

The Solicitor-General

Perhaps that is not a good example. The difficulty is that one does not know exactly what it would include and what it would not include. What we do know with the words we have chosen, is exactly what is and what is not included.

The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) referred to something which my right hon. and learned Friend said in Committee, which undoubtedly was perfectly correct. My right hon. and learned Friend was asked what would be the position if a business were sold and purchased by instalments. The answer he gave was that the instalments would represent capital payments and would not be income payments at all, and therefore would not come into the Contribution provisions at all. In regard to the case of a father retiring from business and drawing benefit from the business thereafter carried on by the son, we have provided for that case in Clause 49 (3), and in the case of an arrangement made in regard to an individual's retirement from business, the annuity paid to him will not count for purposes of investment income. We feel that we have marked off what we think ought not to rank for the purposes of investment income, leaving the rest to rank for the purposes of investment income. We feel that the Amendment does not improve on that position, to put it at its highest. It does not in any way provide for what we have not already provided for. We have tried to draw the line in such a way that it can be interpreted by reference to a particular set of considerations.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I have sent an example already to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. There are cases where annuities are payable without any capital behind them at all, and in those cases they are not to be disregarded but will pay the Contribution. The question I wish to ask is whether the Contribution is to be provided against the annuitant, or if not, who is to pay the contribution?

Mr. E. P. Smith

The Solicitor-General realises that there are certain cases where a private individual of substantial means will sell an annuity to somebody else. He may have only three or four, but does he come under the definition of a person carrying on a life assurance business? I do not think he does, and if he does not, how is that Contribution to be reckoned and who is to pay it?

Sir Ian Fraser (Lonsdale)

I must protest against what seems to me to be a most monstrous injustice. The Solicitor- General has given no satisfactory explanation for his view. His only point is that he finds it difficult to understand what my right hon. Friend, the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) means, but it seems to me to be absolutely clear. If there is a case for excluding the annuity arranged through an insurance company there must be a case for excluding a similar annuity arranged by other people. If the one is just the other is just too. If it is right in regard to one annuity, it is right for the other. It is not enough for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he does not understand it, or that the words of my right hon. Friend are not clear. If they are not clear the Government should find words which would secure justice rather than make arguments against it.

Captain Crookshank

As I understand the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he attempted to explain that the phrase, "in carrying on a life assurance business" was a term of art, for the interpretation of which one had to go back to the 1918 Act. Is that right?

The Solicitor-General


Captain Crookshank

And the reason why those words were used was because they had a meaning which was long established. The question I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman is, what is covered by that term of art? Is it larger or smaller than would be covered by my right hon. Friend's Amendment?

The Solicitor-General

It is difficult to answer because it is difficult to say what is covered by the words in the Amendment. They would cover if possible a form of annuity issued for valuable consideration, but they would not cover any other form of annuity, whereas the definition we have used would cover some which were not issued for such consideration. Therefore, it would not work out.

Captain Crookshank

Does that mean that the Government are trying to put into this Bill what is obviously unfair?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 105.

Division No. 240.] AYES. [9.24 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Bower, N. Clifton-Brown, Lt-Col. G.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Corbet, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Baldwin, A. E. Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Crowder, Capt. John E.
Bennett, Sir P. Challen, C. Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Birch, Nigel Channon, H. Drayson, G. B.
Bossom, A. C. Clarke, Col. R. S. Drewe, C.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Luces, Major Sir J. Ropner, Col. L.
Duthie, W. S. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Eccles, D. M. MacAndrew, col. Sir C. Sanderson, Sir F.
Fletcher, W. (Bury) Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Scott, Lord W.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M. Manningham-Buller, R. E. Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Gage, C. Marples, A. E. Spearman, A. C. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Marsden, Capt. A. Spence, H. R.
Grimston, R. V. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Mellor, Sir J. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Molson, A. H. E. Sutcliffe, H.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.) Moore, Lt.-Col Sir T. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Hogg, Hon. Q. Neven-Spence, Sir B. Teeling, William
Hollis, M. C. Nicholson, G. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich) Odey, G. W. Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
Howard, Hon. A. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Turton, R. H.
Hurd, A. Orr-Ewing, I L. Vane, W. M. F.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Osborne, C. Walker-Smith, D.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Jarvis, Sir J. Pickthorn, K. White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Jeffreys, General Sir G. Pitman, I. J. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Lambert, Hon. G. Porrsonby, Col. C. E. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Langford-Holt, J. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Raikes, H. V. York, C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Ramsay, Maj. S. Young, Sir A. S. L. (Penick)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Rayner, Brig R.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Low, A R. W. Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham) Mr. Studholme and
Major Conant.
Acland, Sir Richard Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Adams, Richard (Balham) Cove, W. G. Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Crawley, A. Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Alpass, J. H. Crossman, R. H. S. Gunter, R. J.
Attewell, H. C. Daggar, G. Guy, W. H.
Austin, H. Lewis Deities, P. Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Awbery, S. S. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Hale, Leslie
Ayles, W. H. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Bacon, Miss A. Davies, Harold (Leek) Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Baird, J. Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.) Hardman, D. R.
Balfour, A. Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Hardy, E. A.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Deer, G. Harrison, J.
Barstow, P. G. de Freitas, Geoffrey Haworth, J.
Barton, C. Diamond, J. Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Battley, J. R. Dobbie, W. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Bechervaise, A. E. Dodds, N. N. Herbison, Miss M.
Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Donovan, T. Hobson, C. R.
Benson, G. Driberg, T. E. N. Holman, P.
Berry, H. Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Beswick, F. Durbin, E. F. M. House, G.
Bing, G. H. C. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Hoy, J.
Binns, J. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty) Hubbard, T.
Blenkinsop, A. Edwards, John (Blackburn) Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Blyton, W. R. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W. Edwards, W. J. (Whilechapel) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton. W.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge) Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Bramall, E. A. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Brook, D. (Halifax) Ewart, R. Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Fairhurst, F. Janner, B.
Brown, George (Belper) Farthing, W. J. Jay, D. P. T.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Fernyhough, E. Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Field, Capt. W. J. Jenkins, R. H.
Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Burden, T. W. Follick, M. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Burke, W. A. Foot, M. M. Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Callaghan, James Forman, J. C. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Carmichael, James Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Keenan, W.
Chamberlain, R. A. Freeman, Peter (Newport) Kenyon, C.
Champion, A. J. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Chetwynd, G. R. Gallacher, W. King, E. M.
Cluse, W. S. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Cobb, F. A. Gibson, C. W. Kinley, J.
Cocks, F. S. Gilzean, A. Kirby, B. V.
Coldrick, W. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Collindridge, F. Gooch, E. G. Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Collins, V. J. Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Lee, F. (Hulme)
Colman, Miss G. M. Creole D. R. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Comyns, Dr. L. Grey, C. F. Leonard, W.
Cook, T. F. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Leslie, J. R.
Levy, B. W. Pargiter, G. A. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Lindgren, G. S. Parkin, B. T. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Lipson, D. L. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Paton, J. (Norwich) Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Logan, D. G. Pearson, A. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Longdon, F. Peart, T. F. Thurtle, Ernest
Lyne, A. W. Popplewell, E. Tiffany, S.
McAllister, G. Porter, E. (Warrington) Timmons, J.
McEntee, V. La T. Porter, G. (Leeds) Titterington, M. F.
McGhee, H. G. Pritt, D. N. Tolley, L.
McGovern, J. Proctor, W. T. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Mack, J. D. Pryde, D. J. Turner-Samuels, M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend) Pursey, Comdr. H. Ungoed-Thomas, L.
McKinley, A. S. Randall, H. E. Vernon, Maj. W. F.
McLeavy, F. Ranger, J. Viant, S. P.
Macpherson, T. (Romford) Rankin, J. Wadsworth, G.
Mainwaring, W. H. Rees-Williams, D. R. Walker, G. H.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Reeves, J. Warbey, W. N.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield) Reid, T. (Swindon) Watkins, T. E.
Mann, Mrs. J. Rhodes, H. Watson, W. M.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Richards, R. Weitzman, D.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Marshall, F. (Brightside) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Mellish, R. J. Royle, C. Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Messer, F. Scollan, T. White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Middleton, Mrs. L. Scott-Elliott, W. White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R. Shackleton, E. A. A. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Mitchison, G. R. Sharp, Granville Wigg, George
Monslow, W. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) Wilkes, L.
Moody, A. S. Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens) Wilkins, W. A.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Shurmer, P. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Moyle, A. Silverman, J. (Erdington) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Murray J. D. Simmons, C. J. Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Nally, W. Skinnard, F. W. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Neal, H. (Clay Cross) Smith, C. (Colchester) Willis, E.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Solley, L. J. Woods, G. S.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Sorensen, R. W. Wyatt, W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Yates, V. F.
Noel-Buxton, Lady Steele, T. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Oldfield, W. H. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Zilliacus, K.
Oliver, G. H. Strose, Dr. B.
Orbach, M. Swingler, S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Sylvester, G. O. Mr. Snow and
Palmer, A. M. F. Taylor, R. J. (Morpath) Mr. George Wallace.
Division No. 241.] AYES [10.30 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Fool, M. M. Messer, F.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Forman, J. C. Middleton, Mrs. L.
Alpass, J. H. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.
Attewell, H. C. Freeman, J. (Watford) Mitchison, G. R.
Austin, H. Lewis Freeman, Peter (Newport) Monslow, W.
Awbery, S. S. Gallacher, W. Moody, A. S.
Ayles, W. H. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Gibson, C. W. Moyle, A.
Bacon, Miss A. Gilzean, A. Murray J. D.
Baird, J. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Nally, W.
Balfour, A. Gooch, E. G. Neal, H. (Clay Cross)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Barstow, P. G. Grey, C. F. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Barton, C. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Bechervaise, A. E. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) O'Brien, T.
Benson, G. Guest, Dr. L. Haden Oldfield, W. H.
Berry, H. Gunter, R. J. Oliver, G. H.
Beswick, F. Guy, W. H. Orbach, M.
Bing, G. H. C. Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Binns, J. Hale, Leslie Palmer, A. M. F.
Blackburn, A. R. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil Pargiter, G. A.
Blenkinsop, A. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Parkin, B. T.
Blyton, W. R. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W. Hardy, E. A. Paton, J. (Norwich)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Harrison, J. Pearson, A.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge) Haworth, J. Peart, T. F.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford) Porter, E. (Warrington)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Porter, G. (Leeds)
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Herbison, Miss M. Price, M. Philips
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Hobson, C. R. Pritt, D. N.
Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G. Holman, P. Proctor, W. T.
Burden, T. W. House, G. Pryde, D. J.
Burke, W. A. Hubbard, T. Pursey, Comdr. H.
Callaghan, James Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Randall, H. E.
Carmichael, James Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Ranger, J.
Chamberlain, R. A. Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Rankin, J.
Champion, A. J. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Rees-Williams, D. R.
Chetwynd, G. R. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe.) Reeves, J.
Cobb, F. A. Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.) Reid, T. (Swindon)
Cocks, F. S. Janner, B. Rhodes, H.
Coldrick, W. Jay, D. P. T. Richards, R.
Collindridge, F. Jeger, G. (Winchester) Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Collins, V. J. Jenkins, R. H. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Colman, Miss G. M. Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley) Rogers, G. H. R.
Comyns, Dr. L. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Cook, T. F. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Royle, C.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Scollan, T.
Cove, W. G. Keenan, W. Scott-Elliott, W.
Crawley, A. Kenyon, C. Shackleton, E. A. A.
Crossman, R. H. S. King, E. M. Sharp, Granville
Daggar, G. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr, E. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Daines, P. Kinsey, J. Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Kirby, B. V. Shurmer, P.
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Lee, F. (Hulme) Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Simmons, C. J.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Leonard, W. Skeffington, A. M.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.) Leslie, J. R. Skinnard, F. W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Levy, B. W. Smith, C. (Colchester)
Deer, G. Lewis, J. (Bolton) Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
de Freitas, Geoffrey Lindgren, G. S. Snow, J. W.
Delargy, H. J. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Solley, L. J.
Diamond, J. Logan, D. G. Sorensen, R. W.
Dobbie, W. Longden, F. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Dodds, N. N. Lyne, A. W. Steele, T.
Donovan, T. McAllister, G. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Driberg, T. E. N. McEntee, V. La T. Stross, Dr. B.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) McGhee, H. G. Swingler, S.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mack, J. D. Sylvester, G. O.
Edwards, John (Blackburn) McKay, J. (Wallsend) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) McKinley, A. S. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) McLeavy, F. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) Macpherson, T. (Romford) Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Mainwaring, W. H. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Ewart, R. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield) Thurtle, Ernest
Fairhurst, F. Mann, Mrs. J. Tiffany, S.
Farthing, W. J. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Timmons, J.
Fernyhough, E. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Titterington, M. F.
Field, Capt. W. J. Marshall, F. (Brightside) Tolley, L.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Mathers, Rt. Hon. George Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Follick, M. Mellish, R. J. Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Vernon, Maj. W. F. Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinh'gh, E.) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Viant, S. P. White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.) Willis, E.
Wadsworth, G. White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Woods, G. S.
Walker, G. H. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Wyatt, W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Wigg, George Yates, V. F.
Warbey, W. N. Wilkes, L. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Watkins, T. E. Wilkins, W. A. Zilliacus, K.
Watson, W. M. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Weitzman, D. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wells, P. L. (Faversham) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Mr. Popplewell and
Wells, W. T. (Walsall) Williams, R. W. (Wigan) Mr. Richard Adams.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Raikes, H. V.
Baldwin, A. E. Jarvis, Sir J. Ramsay, Maj. S.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Rayner, Brig. R.
Bennett, Sir P. Lambert, Hon. G. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Birch, Nigel Langford-Holt, J. Ropner, Col. L.
Bower, N. Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Sanderson, Sir F.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Scott Lord W.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Lipson, D. L. Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Challen, C. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew. E.) Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Channon, H. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Spearman, A. C. M.
Clarke, Col. R. S. Lucas, Major Sir J. Spence, H. R.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Corbel, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Studholme, H. G.
Crowder, Capt. John E. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Sutcliffe, H.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Manningham-Buller, R. E. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Drewe, C. Marples, A. E. Teeling, William
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Marsden, Capt. A. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Eccles, D. M. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Fletcher, W. (Bury) Molson, A. H. E. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lansdale) Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M. Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) Turton, R. H.
Gage, C. Neven-Spence, Sir B. Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Nicholson, G. Walker-Smith, D.
Grimston, R. V. Odey, G. W. Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Orr-Ewing, I. L. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.) Osborne, C. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hogg, Hon. Q. Pickthorn, K. York, C.
Hollis, M. C. Pitman, I. J.
Howard, Hon. A. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hurd, A. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Major Conant and
Brigadier Mackeson.